Goldman Sachs Gives Hillary Clinton Almost Half A Million Dollars In Less Than A Week

225px-Hillary_Clinton_official_Secretary_of_State_portrait_cropWhile the public polls show a public disgusted with the two party duopoly on power and demanding change, the same figures are emerging as the choices for the next president. The most obvious is Hillary Clinton who is reportedly positioning herself now as a candidate of change — a curious role for one of the most establishment figures on the political scene. The other leading candidate is Joe Biden who has been a source of continued gaffs as Vice President and viewed as the other leading candidate of establishment interests. However, there is an effort to reinvent Clinton who supported various wars under Bush and Obama and did little to stop torture and surveillance programs. Indeed, the new MSNBC host Ronan Farrow has proclaimed that the “Clintons represent a style of honesty that the public craves.” Farrow does not appear to remember Bill Clinton’s public and sworn denials in the Lewinsky affair or other scandals. Indeed, the new Hillary Clinton is already attracting the type of influence seekers associated with the two parties. Just this last month, Goldman Sachs gave Clinton almost a half of million dollars for just two speeches in one week. The event is made more curious by fact that speech was described as “prepared remarks” followed by limited questions. It is doubtful that Clinton informed Goldman Sachs of anything other than the most predictable remarks from a politician — not some critical re-orientation of their investment strategy. UPDATE: Chuck Schumer has already endorsed Clinton to be the next president.

In speeches on October 24 and October 29, Goldman Sachs gave Clinton $200,000 a speech. Thursday’s speech was a closed door meeting with Goldman and its clients. The prior Tuesday she spoke at a session hosted by Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein.

From Goldman Sachs to the Carlyle group, business interests are lining up to give huge amounts of cash to the Clintons personally for such speeches.

In the meantime, the two parties are moving to ensure that the same faces and choices will be given to voters despite overwhelming discontent over the two-party monopoly on power. With a system protecting incumbents and control of the two main parties, such public opposition remains largely immaterial and business interests are already putting money down on candidates like Clinton — and the “style of honesty” that they crave.

163 thoughts on “Goldman Sachs Gives Hillary Clinton Almost Half A Million Dollars In Less Than A Week”

  1. Tea Party anyone?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism

    Right-wing authoritarians want society and social interactions structured in ways that increase uniformity and minimize diversity. In order to achieve that, they tend to be in favour of social control, coercion, and the use of group authority to place constraints on the behaviours of people such as gays and lesbians, political dissidents, ethnic minorities, immigrants, feminists and atheists. These constraints might include restrictions on immigration, limits on free speech and association and laws regulating moral behaviour. It is the willingness to support or take action that leads to increased social uniformity that makes right-wing authoritarianism more than just a personal distaste for difference. Right-wing authoritarianism is characterized by obedience to authority, moral absolutism, racial and ethnic prejudice, and intolerance and punitiveness towards dissidents and deviants. In parenting, right-wing authoritarians value children’s obedience, neatness, and good manners.[1]
    Right-wing authoritarianism is defined by three attitudinal and behavioral clusters which correlate together:[12][13]
    Authoritarian submission — a high degree of submissiveness to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives.
    Authoritarian aggression — a general aggressiveness directed against deviants, outgroups, and other people that are perceived to be targets according to established authorities.
    Conventionalism — a high degree of adherence to the traditions and social norms that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities, and a belief that others in one’s society should also be required to adhere to these norms.[14]

  2. David, someone started the follow up to my comment regarding what if you rent (among other examples that refute your position of who should and should no be allowed to vote)
    I lived in NYC, I rented. so I should not have a vote despite the state, city deciding what kinds of renting there is, what compromises acceptable renting facilities, etc?(lHeck here is a link for country, laws and statutes for renters http://www.thelpa.com/lpa/lllaw.html)

    All these are a result of for whom and which party you vote.
    Fair Housing Accessibility First
    – Federal Fair Housing Laws
    – Americans with Disabilities Act
    – National Consumer Law Center

    You remind me of the people who think concealed weapons are fine everywhere etc because they apparently think we are still in the days when there was a miniscule population scattered throughout the country and people needed to protect themselves.
    There is a how mnay millions of folks and the government deals with renting, social issues etc that were not in play in the Jeffersonian era.

    1. leejcaroll wrote: “I lived in NYC, I rented. so I should not have a vote despite the state, city deciding what kinds of renting there is, what compromises acceptable renting facilities, etc?”

      No, remember this is a weighted voting system that I was talking about. You would get a vote just like you always have, but the vote of the owner of your apartment would be counted like two votes because he owned the property. However, if the owner of the apartment did not own it free and clear, for example, if he had a mortgage on the apartment, then his vote would be the same as yours. Furthermore, you could increase your voting power by demonstrating knowledge of government, the candidates running for office, and current events.

      1. “No, remember this is a weighted voting system that I was talking about. You would get a vote just like you always have, but the vote of the owner of your apartment would be counted like two votes because he owned the property.”

        DavidM,

        What’s beyond sad is I don’t think you even realize what a totalitarian feudalist you are. So if this apartment owner inherited his real estate from his father with no mortgage. He could have quit high school at 16 and still gets twice the votes of a tenant who is a word famous brain surgeon.

  3. davidm wrote: “My viewpoint is a synthesis and is unique. As I said before, this forum is not the proper place for me to lay it all out for you.”

    I responded: “If you could explain it in “this forum”–you would.”

    davidm then wrote: “I did explain it, but you don’t even take the time to read my posts carefully. You completely misrepresent what I said, as do some others here. I tire of trying to explain something you clearly are not interested in, sorry. I have lots of other things to do.”

    *****

    So…david says this blog is not the forum the proper place for him to “lay it all out…” I claim that’s a poor excuse for not explaining himself. Then he claims he already explained it.

    If davidm has “explained” it, he has not done so clearly, concisely, and in a manner that is intelligible.

  4. What books do you recommend? I’ve read Milton Friedman’s work and I find him intellectually dishonest. Maybe something else would be more convincing

  5. If and when you do ever get around to writing a book on voting rights, maybe you could get Gene to write the foreword

  6. If we have a different view of govt today, it’s because we’ve evolved in as our understanding of the society has become more sophisticated.

    John Locke was arguing for rights of the individual against those of a supreme monarch. I’m no expert, but I think property ownership was a justification for extending certain rights in opposition to the arbitrary dictates of the crown.

  7. David,
    There are a lot of laws on the books. Did you know that in Florida it is illegal to have sex with a porcupine?

    Here is a suggestion. Go to all the nursing home facilities in Florida and file the paperwork necessary to keep the elderly from voting. And don’t forget to include those who are cared for at home. Just because there is a law on the books does not mean it is enforced. Or for that matter, enforceable.

    As far as Mississippi goes, I never heard of a single instance of a person being denied the right to vote because they had a dementia. Of course, most people with middle and end-stage dementia are not interested in voting, but that is another issue altogether.

    In Oxford MS, home town of William Faulkner and the University of Mississippi, it is illegal to drive around the town square more than one hundred times in a single session. Speaking of Oxford, I don’t think the local authorities ever arrested Faulkner for his habit of relieving himself on a lamppost on the square. They never kept him from voting either.

    1. OS wrote: “Go to all the nursing home facilities in Florida and file the paperwork necessary to keep the elderly from voting. And don’t forget to include those who are cared for at home. Just because there is a law on the books does not mean it is enforced. Or for that matter, enforceable.”

      Chuck, this is not an obscure law in Florida that is not enforced. We have a lot of elderly here in Florida because it is a popular retirement state. I became aware of the laws regarding incapacity and incompetence when my father-in-law was adjudicated incompetent while living in a nursing home.

      I have in my hand right now the Petition to Determine Incapacity which was filed by his wife’s attorney. It specifically says that the incapacitated person is incapable of exercising the following rights:

      – to personally apply for government benefits
      – to contract
      – to sue and defend lawsuits
      – to manage property or to make any gift ro disposition of property
      – to determine his residence
      – to consent to medical treatment
      – to make decisions about his social environment or other social aspects of his life.
      – to marry
      – to vote
      – to travel
      – to have a driver’s license
      – to seek or retain employment

  8. DavidM wrote: “Voting is a privilege that should be extended to those who are affected by the laws created.”

    Taken at face value, that would include illegal immigrants and undocumented workers. I understand you would assign a lesser value to their votes according to their status, but….

    Your point about uneducated voters cancelling out the votes of the informed (like you), actually calls for increasing awareness of the issues among voters. There needs to be more emphasis on the importance of civic participation in our culture and how it affects our lives. Repubs have done everything they can to discourage the average citizen from believing in govt.

    If this isn’t the proper forum, what is? The park where you’ve been arrested? How ’bout the coffee shop? I think the problem with this forum here, is that people are too adept at pointing out the holes in your leaky logic.

    1. RTC wrote: “If this isn’t the proper forum, what is?”

      Providing you a book to read, with the relevant background information.

      RTC wrote: “I think the problem with this forum here, is that people are too adept at pointing out the holes in your leaky logic.”

      Actually, the forum here provides an excellent place to read objections from liberals so that I may address them in my books. The problem is that I am not writing a book on this subject of voting right now and I have too many other things to do. I extended my comment about it for one primary reason: a pleasant lady said she was seriously interested in my thoughts and I hoped to oblige her somewhat. What can I say? Sometimes the gentleman side of me comes out. 🙂

      My lawyer daughter actually loves my views about voting, but she obviously is biased by being my daughter and also being conservative in her values.

  9. david,
    Your view is not unique. It is the same plutocratic basis with a new label on it. Under your viewpoint, if I am in power in your voting area, I can decide that you cannot vote because you don’t own property, aren’t educated enough or aren’t educated in the areas I want you to be educated in or I can decide what is on the test that determines if you are worthy enough or American enough to get the full voting privileges. By the way, the primary purpose of government is not to protect private property ownership.

    1. rafflaw wrote: “Your view is not unique. It is the same plutocratic basis with a new label on it. Under your viewpoint, if I am in power in your voting area, I can decide that you cannot vote because you don’t own property, aren’t educated enough or aren’t educated in the areas I want you to be educated in or I can decide what is on the test that determines if you are worthy enough or American enough to get the full voting privileges.”

      No, that is not my viewpoint.

      rafflaw wrote: “By the way, the primary purpose of government is not to protect private property ownership.”

      I realize that many people today have a completely different vision for government. Perhaps I could better phrase it as the idea that a foundational purpose of government is to protect private property ownership. This stems from John Locke’s concept that property ownership is connected to freedom and liberty of the individual, and that property ownership predates government.

  10. davidm,

    I’m not trying to stereotype you. You’re making no sense at all.

    “My viewpoint is a synthesis and is unique. As I said before, this forum is not the proper place for me to lay it all out for you.”

    Poor excuse. If you could explain it in “this forum”–you would.

    1. Elaine M wrote: ” If you could explain it in “this forum”–you would.”

      I did explain it, but you don’t even take the time to read my posts carefully. You completely misrepresent what I said, as do some others here. I tire of trying to explain something you clearly are not interested in, sorry. I have lots of other things to do.

  11. David,
    Your comment about grandma voting shows your lack of understanding of the law. If there is a law that says somebody with dementia can’t vote, I am unaware of it and I believe I keep up with this stuff way better than the average person. This is a subject that has been debated in legal and geropsychiatric circles for years.

    Here are two articles that address the issue of cognitively impaired people voting.

    http://www.healthcentral.com/alzheimers/c/62/10572/vote-people

    http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/aging/voting/pdfs/appelbaum.authcheckdam.pdf

    1. OS wrote: “Your comment about grandma voting shows your lack of understanding of the law. If there is a law that says somebody with dementia can’t vote, I am unaware of it and I believe I keep up with this stuff way better than the average person. This is a subject that has been debated in legal and geropsychiatric circles for years.”

      States differ on this subject, just as they do on the rights of felons to vote.

      Here in Florida, when someone has been adjudicated incompetent, they lose their right to vote.

      http://www.866ourvote.org/newsroom/publications/body/0049.pdf

      Not qualified to vote if adjudicated, in
      this or any other state, to be mentally
      incompetent, until the disability has
      been removed or civil rights have been
      restored. FLA. CONST. Art. 6 § 4(a).

      A resident of a residential facility who
      has reached his eighteenth birthday
      and is otherwise qualified to vote is
      eligible to vote, provided such person
      has not been adjudicated mentally
      incompetent. Op.Atty.Gen., 074-15,
      Jan. 9, 1974.

      Not entitled to vote if adjudicated
      mentally incapacitated with regard to
      voting in this or any other state and
      right not restored.
      FLA. STAT. § 97.041(2)(a).

      Right to vote can be removed if
      a person is determined to be
      incapacitated.
      FLA. STAT. § 744.3215(2)(b).

      Persons under guardianship
      must be evaluated for voting
      disqualification. FLA. STAT. §
      744.331(3)(d)(2).

      Your State of Mississippi has a different standard:

      “Idiots” and “insane” persons are not
      qualified electors. MISS. CONST. art. 12,
      § 241.

      “Idiots” and “insane” persons shall not
      be entitled or permitted to vote. MISS.
      CODE ANN. § 23-15-11.

  12. David, I occasionally dream that I’m 5’11”, 25 and dating the hunk du jour but it’s only a dream.

    The other thing that comes to mind is “Lipstick on a pig” and in that regard the revolution you seek, and it is revolution, has been preempted and revealed by your impatient political brethren. There is really no difference in effect between what you want and the radical, democracy hating Governors and Legislators in states that have and are passing new voting laws to disenfranchise the elderly, minorities, the poor, women, and students. You just want to pretty it up.

    http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/6/3/0/5/8/7/Triple-facepalm-76680723777.jpeg

  13. david,
    universal sufferage can’t have restrictions on it. As Elaine suggested, who decides what’s on the test? Your comment that everyone being able to cote is the reason why the government is so polarized and broken? I guess the plutocracy in place buying the elections and owning the politicians has nothing to do with it. Who decides who is the ignorant one? Sounds like Universal Jim Crow.

  14. rafflaw,

    We’re going to have to start requiring voters to take a test before they vote. Some higher being will write the test, administer the test, and then decide who is qualified to vote.

    1. Elaine M wrote: “You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.”

      No, you just are trying to stereotype me into some category of something else that you heard. My viewpoint is a synthesis and is unique. As I said before, this forum is not the proper place for me to lay it all out for you.

  15. leejcarroll,

    Stop conflating two different issues will you? Some would like us to return to the days of the landed gentry when women knew their place, people of means could own slaves, and women, blacks, and those who were not land owners could not vote. Can’t let the rabble have the same rights as the aristocracy! We must keep the power in hands of the entitled class, doncha know?

    *****

    davidm2575 1, November 2, 2013 at 1:06 pm

    leejcaroll wrote: “Just because you own land, instead of rent does not mean you are knowledgeable about the issues.”

    Agreed. You are conflating two separate issues. Land ownership is about having more skin in the game, and the arguments have been made already in detail by our founding fathers.

    *****

    Gibberish!

  16. David, your logic (above) is about as strained as is possible. Specifically:

    The person who knows the least about what they are voting on and who owns no property would be the one whose vote has the least value.
    [snip]
    Voting is a privilege that should be extended to those who are affected by the laws created.

    Surely you jest? In a democracy or democratic republic, grandma in the nursing home with Alzheimer’s vote must count with the same value as that of the President. No more, no less.

    As for only those who are “affected” by a law should get to vote on it is one of the most naive statements I ever heard from an allegedly grown man. Who gets to decide?

    If I had my way, every single person of legal age would vote, and if they cannot get to the polls, election officials should make sure the polls come to them. Additionally, Congressional redistricting should be done by computer rather than by elected politicians who want to make certain they have a sinecure. The computer should be set up so that district boundaries are based on the shortest possible perimeter that can be mathematically and topographically derived. I am willing to make a few allowances for natural barriers such as rivers and mountain ranges.

    1. OS wrote: “In a democracy or democratic republic, grandma in the nursing home with Alzheimer’s vote must count with the same value as that of the President. No more, no less.”

      Well, you had better start trying to fix our laws then, because right now, grandma in the nursing home who has been declared incompetent is not allowed to vote at all. You want her to have the same vote as the President? That is foolish.

      Giving everyone in society the same vote is a major reason why our government is so polarized and broken.

  17. david,
    We are all affected by the laws our government passes. Some more than others.
    So, under your logic, if I understand it correctly, if I do not own a house, I don’t know enough about the country to vote? That is not only disturbing, but disgusting. There have already been studies showing that Fox News viewers know less about the facts surrounding our politics, so I guess you and your Fox news fans can just sit out this next election. When is the ACT voting test being given next?

    1. rafflaw wrote: “So, under your logic, if I understand it correctly, if I do not own a house, I don’t know enough about the country to vote? That is not only disturbing, but disgusting.”

      No, you do not understand my logic here. What you describe is what Thomas Jefferson thought about voting — that only landowners should be allowed the vote. I told you that I support universal suffrage but not equal suffrage. I believe a weighted voting system would serve us better, and that the equal suffrage movement is destroying a workable democratic system.

      When an ignorant person who doesn’t even know who the candidates are goes into a voting booth to vote because he has been told that it is his civil duty to vote, and his vote cancels out your vote because he chose a different candidate from you, this results in a tragedy of democracy. It has the same result on our voting system as if somebody forbid you your privilege to vote. Can you not see that the result is the same? The guy has no idea whose box he checked. He could not tell you anything about the person he voted for. His vote is completely random, and it canceled out your vote. Such should never happen in a good democracy.

Comments are closed.